Search for: "COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC." Results 141 - 160 of 291
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Dec 2020, 7:44 am by Rebecca Tushnet
International Code Council, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
Brown, ED Wash 2014http://t.co/bb9o7wCDtS -> Hong Kong media group has no protectable goodwill in the UK; its Community trade mark is ‘now’ invalid http://t.co/pmusuCUPZs -> Who owns the word ‘pink’? [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 8:58 am by [email protected]
Davis is the former CEO of the technology company Behavioral Recognition Systems Inc. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 8:58 am by [email protected]
Davis is the former CEO of the technology company Behavioral Recognition Systems Inc. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm by stevemehta
Cox sought medical care on an outpatient basis at the facilities of Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Lynch Communication Systems, Inc., et al., No. 272, 1993, opinion (Del. [read post]
11 Feb 2018, 3:15 am by Barry Sookman
https://t.co/s0gjpLbVWm 2018-02-04 The IPKat: BMG v Cox – when does an ISP lose its safe harbour protection? [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
In a brief comment, the attorney representing Grumpy Cat Limited stated that “Grumpy Cat feels vindicated and feels the jury reached a just verdict”.February opened with a very important decision from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed a $25 million verdict against the US Internet Service Provider Cox Communications in what might have been seen as a defeat for record label BMG, which had sought to hold Cox liable for copyright… [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 2:12 pm by WIMS
We believe that we can have the same kind of impact on energy that the mobile phone had on communications. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
Cox, 477 So. 2d 963 (Ala. 1985), that failure by the plaintiff (as opposed to a prescribing physician) to read a drug label precluded any finding of causation:[N]othing in the nature of [defendant’s] inadequate warning prevented plaintiff from reading it. [read post]